The High Court acquitted the appellant of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC), finding no proof of intent to cause death, and instead convicted him for voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 324 IPC.
Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 324 IPC with sentence of imprisonment and fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1831 of 2004 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 791/2003 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PODIYAN @ VALUTHAKUNJU ERATHU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR,, ADOOR.(CRIME NO.83/2000 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION), REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY PP SRI DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
......................................... Crl.A.No.1831 of 2004 ....................................... Dated 1st March, 2016
JUDGMENT 'CR'
This appeal is preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence in S.C.791 of 2003 of additional District and Sessions Judge adhoc I, Pathanamthitta under section 307 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 7.2.2000 at 7 pm, while PW1 and 2 were settling the quarrel between the accused and his wife(PW3). The accused assaulted PW2 with MO1 stone and attempted to murder him. In this incident, Adoor police registered a crime and after investigation, C.I of Police, Adoor laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor. From there, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Subsequently, it was made over to additional Sessions Court, Adhoc I.
2
Cra 1831/2004
imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment, simple imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.
Cra 1831/2004
3
Apex Court in Hari Singh V. Sukhir Singh and others ( 1988 SCC (Crl 984) it was held as follows:-
“Under Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused, though armed with ballam, never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite their being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but they were not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant showing that they had no intention to commit
Cra 1831/2004
4
murder. They had no motive either. The fight might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is generally not called for. There is, therefore, no reason to disturb the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 in this case”.
Cra 1831/2004 5
The witnesses were cross examined by the defence counsel. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the oral testimony of PW2 even after repeated cross examination. PW1 who was the member of Enathu Panchayat was present there, supported the oral testimony of PW2. He also stated a same version given by PW2 and gave Ext.P1 to the police. PW3 who is the wife of the appellant also supported the evidence of PW2. She also identified MO1 stone. PW4, the father in law also supported the oral evidence of PW2. Analysing the oral testimony of PW1 and MO1 to MO3, it is clear that PW2 sustained injury due to the attack with MO1 by the appellant.
6
Cra 1831/2004
admitted in the hospital and discharged on 12.02.2002. They alleged a cause of injury was assault with stone at 7.45 p.m and no fracture on the head. MO1 is sufficient to cause injury mentioned in Ext.P2, and it is not sufficient to cause death. PW2 has no case that the appellant assaulted him with the intention to cause death. Therefore the oral evidence of PW1 to 4 shows that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt with a dangerous weapon MO1. Analysing the medical evidence and oral testimony of PW2, it is clear that the appellant had no intention to cause death which is an essential ingredient to attract the offence of attempt to murder.
Cra 1831/2004
7
Prasad vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] held as
follows :
“In this state of the evidence we must hold that the prosecution has not established that the offence committed by the appellant falls squarely under Section 307, I.P.C. In our opinion, it amounts only to an offence under Section 324, I.P.C.”
alias Appachan vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1995 SC 2450]
held as follows :
“It is then urged that the offence of the appellant fell under Section 326, I.P.C. and not under Section 307, I.P.C. The victim has narrated that when he was accosted and
Cra 1831/2004
8
exhortation raised to finish him and a blow was raised towards him by the appellant, he cried out that he should not be killed and, at the same time, raised his right arm to ward off the blow which, on falling, instantaneously severed his hand. The severity of the blow speaks for itself. The damage done has its own story to tell. Had the hand not been raised in a bid to defend, the aim was the head of the victim. The blow thus aimed would have clearly spelled out the murderous intent of the appellant. It is from that angle the guilt of the appellant need to be viewed rather than the result achieved. In any case, it would be an academic exercise if the matter is pressed any further, for even under Section 326, I.P.C., a sentence of five years is impossible.”
In order to attract offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder and the actual act of trying to commit murder. Therefore the words “such intention” found in S.307 refers to the meaning “intention” referred under section 300 IPC. It means, intention to cause death, intention to cause such bodily injury which the offender knows it as likely to cause death. The intention to cause such bodily injury which is sufficient in
Cra 1831/2004
9
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore the intention to cause death is the essential element to attract the offence of attempt to murder. From the evidence, it is clear that the appellant had no intention to commit murder, on the other hand, he inflicted an injury with MO1 which is an offence under Section 324 IPC alone.
The appellant is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is directed to surrender in the trial court to undergo the modified sentence failing which the learned Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc I, shall issue nonbailable warrant forthwith.
P.D. RAJAN JUDGE
lgk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Chosen Act amounts to Attempted Murder or only Simple Volontarily Causing Hurt under section 324 IPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the intention to cause death required to attract the offence under section 307 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumersimbh Umedsinh Rajput V. State of GujaratRelied on¶21
Sumersimbh Umedsinh Rajput V. State of Gujarat (2007 (13) SCC 83) · Who else cites this
Hari Singh V. Sukhir SinghExplained¶25
Hari Singh V. Sukhir Singh and others ( 1988 SCC (Crl 984) · Who else cites this
Sarju Prasad vs. State of BiharFollowed¶41
Sarju Prasad vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] · Who else cites this
Antony alias Appachan vs. State of KeralaReferred¶44
Antony alias Appachan vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1995 SC 2450] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PODIYAN @ VALUTHAKUNJU
STATE OF KERALA
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
